Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Ethics And Geospatial Surveillance

2.
ETHICS AND GEOSPATIAL 2
Ethics and Geospatial Surveillance
Is Big Brother watching? Government surveillance, cheaper than ever before,
increasingly resembles something out of George Orwell’s 1984. From the NSA’s national
database of phone calls to concerns over privacy and mobile mapping devices, issues relating to
surveillance are more personal and increasingly individualized. Ethical considerations relating to
geospatial surveillance can be categorized into three core issues which are as important as they
are brawny. First, ethical considerations extend beyond awareness and consent to concerns over
constitutional rights. Second, geospatial technologies are directly connected to an erosion of
privacy in modern society. Third, relationships between governmental entities and private
industry are strained as access and control over geospatial data is restricted. At the heart of the
debate are ethical considerations.
Awareness, consent, and constitutional rights are at the heart of a debate about ethical
considerations relating to surveillance. More than a few theorists and officials have attempted to
determine the best methods and codes for guiding and restricting surveillance practices. The GIS
Certification Institute created a Code of Ethics to provide means for defining ethical guidelines
and reporting unethical behavior (2014). In addition to groups, individuals have attempted to
define and enforce ethical surveillance practices. Matt Artz attempts to define the problem in his
blog “GIS and Science.” Although transparency and harmlessness are two actionable guidelines
suggested by Matt Artz (2009) to shape a dialogue relating to surveillance, Wu et al explain that
awareness and consent are better guidelines because they can be used to “evaluate proposed
methods” (Wu et al, 2008). Still, the best guidelines recognize and protect natural rights – Gary
Marx cites the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments as central to “respect for the personhood,
dignity and autonomy of the individual” (1999). Harlan J. Onsrud sees the issue as a debate

3.
ETHICS AND GEOSPATIAL 3
between law and ethics (2008). Privacy in modern society seems to be a balancing act between
the greater good for public safety (law) and concerns for individual autonomy (ethics).
For this reason, geospatial surveillance can be connected to an erosion of privacy in
modern society. Harlan J. Onsrud (2008) explains that globalization makes it “far more
challenging to protect personal information privacy.” Although Onsrud (2008) applauds the Geo
Data Commons site which allows equal access to geospatial data online, one might wonder
whether more restrictions should be implemented for sharing geospatial data than for sharing an
iTunes song. Less restrictive intellectual property regimes may work for intellectual data, but
what about highly sensitive geospatial data? Consider the meta data in a photograph or the
location data embedded in a social media post. Or, consider the intel that can be collected by
drones. Lynch and Foote (2015) warn of the capabilities of drones to erode privacy, and applaud
over forty states which have enacted laws restricting the use of drones. In fact, surveillance can
extend beyond drones to a variety of other devices with remote sensing capabilities. From using
satellites to sense the moisture levels in soil to pinpointing an individual’s locating using his
phone, surveillance capabilities increase as privacy decreases.
Access and control over geospatial data continues to strain relationships between the
government and private industry and individuals. In December 2016, Twitter stopped selling
personal geospatial data to police intelligence centers (Brandom, 2016). Twitter’s decision was
based on the implementation of a new privacy policy founded on ethical concerns (Brandom,
2016). However, improper use and access to geospatial data can be connected with government
abuses. In addition to private geospatial data, the debate continues over what is a matter of public
record. In the legal case Zinn vs State, the USGS map was used to define state and private

4.
ETHICS AND GEOSPATIAL 4
property lines. However, the map did not have sufficient detail. As a result of the misuse of
geospatial data some private lands were seized as government lands (Lynch, Foote, 2015). As a
whole, access to geospatial surveillance data is even more complicated under the Freedom of
Information Act (Lynch, Foot, 2015) as individuals have access but not control over their public
records. The complexity of data access is echoed by Onsrud who feels that simply relying on
restrictive laws will not sufficiently address ethical issues relating to geospatial surveillance.
Although the ethical problems connected to geospatial surveillance is documented, the
solutions are far too complex for a simple answer. Awareness and consent drive debates over
surveillance ethics. Individuals lose rights to privacy as geospatial surveillance increases.
Governmental and private industry relationships are strained as large organizations push for
access to geospatial data. Current governmental codes and the Code of Ethics from the GIS
Certification Institute are only part of the answer. Certainly, the ethical issues relating to
geospatial surveillance require continued attention.